SECTIO 101 OATHS

101.1 Oath of Jurors Before Voir Dire

101.2 Oath of Jurors After Voir Dire
101.3 Oath of a Witness



101.1 OATH OF JURORS BEFORE VOIR DIRE

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will answer truthfully all
questions asked of you as prospective jurors?

101.2 OATH OF JUROR AFTER VOIR DIRE

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will well and truly try this case
between the Plaintiff John Carroll and Defendants Sandra Matteson, David
Lilienthal, Ronald Voelker, WaterSound Community Association, Inc. and
Watercolor Community Association, Inc., and a true verdict render according to
the law and evidence?


101.3 OATH OF A WITNESS

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence you are about to give will
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?


101.4 OATH OF AN INTERPRETER

Not applicable
201.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE
(Prior to Voir Dire)

Welcome. The clerk will now administer your oath.

Now that you have been sworn, I`d like to give you an idea about what we are here to do.

This is a civil trial. A civil trial is diIIerent Irom a criminal case, where a deIendant is
charged by the state prosecutor with committing a crime. The subiect oI a civil trial is a
disagreement between people or companies, where the claims oI one or more oI these parties
have been brought to court to be resolved. It is called 'a trial oI a lawsuit.

This is a case between a PlaintiII named John Carroll and DeIendants Sandra Matteson,
David Lilienthal, Mary Joule, Ronald Voelker and 2 Corporations, the WaterSound Beach
Community Association and the Watercolor Community Association. Mr. Carroll alleges the
DeIendants Iormed an understanding between them to boycott Mr. Carroll and to unreasonably
iniure him in his attempts to compete as a builder and developer oI vacation homes. In the
Iurtherance oI the Civil Conspiracy, Mr. Carroll alleges the DeIendants committed acts oI
Slander, Libel, Breach oI Fiduciary Duty, Negligence, Breach oI Contract, Negligent Retention
oI Employment and Fraud.

The incidents involved in this case began in 2006 and continued through 2009 at the Watercolor
community and spread to the community oI WaterSound Beach.

The principal witnesses who will testiIy in this case are Mr. Carroll and the DeIendants along
with people associated with the communities whom include competitors to Mr. Carroll`s
businesses, Directors oI the Associations, Employees oI the St. Joe Company, Employees within
the Associations, Iellow homeowners in the WaterSound Beach Community and a ProIessional
Geologist:

Elizabeth O`Brien
Amy Norstworthy
Terri Moore
Drew Robertson
Brian Stackable
Tracy Regan
Bridget Precise
David Lilienthal, Jr.
Joan Luchese
Craig Baranowski
Kevin Achatz
Dale Putz
Mary Rosenheim
Raeph Menocal
Jack Luchese


201.2 INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR ROLES

:KRDUHWKHSHRSOHKHUHDQGZKDWGRWKH\GR"

Judge/Court: I am the Judge. You may hear people occasionally reIer to me as 'The
Court. That is the Iormal name Ior my role. My iob is to maintain order and decide how to
apply the rules oI the law to the trial. I will also explain various rules to you that you will need
to know in order to do your iob as the iury. It is my iob to remain neutral on the issues oI this
lawsuit.
Attorneys: The attorneys to whom I will introduce you have the iob oI representing their
clients. That is, they speak Ior their client here at the trial. They have taken oaths as attorneys to
do their best and to Iollow the rules Ior their proIession.
PlaintiII`s Counsel: Mr. Carroll is presenting his case without an attorney, and is the
person who Iiled the lawsuit here at the courthouse. His iob is to present his side oI things to you.
He will be reIerred to most oI the time as 'the plaintiII.
DeIendant`s Counsel: The attorneys on this side oI the courtroom, are Christopher
George who, represents Sandra Matteson, David Lilienthal, Mary Joule and the WaterSound
Beach Community Association. Seated next to him is Gary Shipman who represents the
Watercolor Community Association, and Iinally Mark Davis who represents Ronald Voelker the
ones who have been sued. Their iob is to present their client`s side oI things to you. Their
clients` will usually be reIerred to here as 'the deIendants.
Court Clerk: This person sitting in Iront oI me, Selena Sutera, is the court clerk. She is
here to assist me with some oI the mechanics oI the trial process, including the numbering and
collection oI the exhibits that are introduced in the course oI the trial.
Court Reporter: The person sitting at the stenographic machine, Kathy Peacock, is the
court reporter. Her iob is to keep an accurate legal record oI everything we say and do during this
trial.
BailiII: The person over there, is the bailiII. His iob is to maintain order and security in
the courtroom. The bailiII is also my representative to the iury. Anything you need or any
problems that come up Ior you during the course oI the trial should be brought to him. However,
the bailiII cannot answer any oI your questions about the case. Only I can do that.
Jury: Last, but not least, is the iury, which we will begin to select in a Iew moments Irom
among all oI you. The iury`s iob will be to decide what the Iacts are and what the Iacts mean.
Jurors should be as neutral as possible at this point and have no Iixed opinion about the lawsuit.
In order to have a Iair and lawIul trial, there are rules that all iurors must Iollow. A basic
rule is that iurors must decide the case only on the evidence presented in the courtroom. You
must not communicate with anyone, including Iriends and Iamily members, about this case, the
people and places involved, or your iury service. You must not disclose your thoughts about this
case or ask Ior advice on how to decide this case.
I want to stress that this rule means you must not use electronic devices or computers to
communicate about this case, including tweeting, texting, blogging, e-mailing, posting
inIormation on a website or chat room, or any other means at all. Do not send or accept any
messages to or Irom anyone about this case or your iury service.
You must not do any research or look up words, names, maps, or anything else that may
have anything to do with this case. This includes reading newspapers, watching television or
using a computer, cell phone, the Internet, any electronic device, or any other means at all, to get
inIormation related to this case or the people and places involved in this case. This applies
whether you are in the courthouse, at home, or anywhere else.
All oI us are depending on you to Iollow these rules, so that there will be a Iair and lawIul
resolution to this case. Unlike questions that you may be allowed to ask in court, which will be
answered in court in the presence oI the iudge and the parties, iI you investigate, research or
make inquiries on your own outside oI the courtroom, the trial iudge has no way to assure they
are proper and relevant to the case. The parties likewise have no opportunity to dispute the
accuracy oI what you Iind or to provide rebuttal evidence to it. That is contrary to our iudicial
system, which assures every party the right to ask questions about and rebut the evidence being
considered against it and to present argument with respect to that evidence. Non-court inquiries
and investigations unIairly and improperly prevent the parties Irom having that opportunity our
iudicial system promises. II you become aware oI any violation oI these instructions or any other
instruction I give in this case, you must tell me by giving a note to the bailiII.
201.3 EXPLANATION OF THE VOIR DIRE PROCESS

Voir Dire:
The last thing I want to do, beIore we begin to select the iury, is to explain to you how the
selection process works.
Questions/Challenges: This is the part oI the case where the parties and their lawyers
have the opportunity to get to know a little bit about you, in order to help them come to their own
conclusions about your ability to be Iair and impartial, so they can decide who they think should
be the iurors in this case.
How we go about that is as Iollows: First, I`ll ask some general questions oI you. Then,
each oI the lawyers will have more speciIic questions that they will ask oI you. AIter they have
asked all oI their questions, I will meet with them and they will tell me their choices Ior iurors.
Each side can ask that I exclude a person Irom serving on a iury iI they can give me a reason to
believe that he or she might be unable to be Iair and impartial. That is what is called a challenge
Ior cause. The lawyers also have a certain number oI what are called peremptory challenges, by
which they may exclude a person Irom the iury without giving a reason. By this process oI
elimination, the remaining persons are selected as the iury. It may take more than one conIerence
among the parties, their attorneys, and me beIore the Iinal selections are made.
Purpose oI Questioning: The questions that you will be asked during this process are not
intended to embarrass you or unnecessarily pry into your personal aIIairs, but it is important that
the parties and their attorneys know enough about you to make this important decision. II a
question is asked that you would preIer not to answer in Iront oI the whole courtroom, iust let me
know and you can come up here and give your answer iust in Iront oI the attorneys and me. II
you have a question oI either the attorneys or me, don`t hesitate to let me know.
Response to Questioning: There are no right or wrong answers to the questions that will
be asked oI you. The only thing that I ask is that you answer the questions as Irankly and as
honestly and as completely as you can. You |will take| |have taken| an oath to answer all
questions truthIully and completely and you must do so. Remaining silent when you have
inIormation you should disclose is a violation oI that oath as well. II a iuror violates this oath, it
not only may result in having to try the case all over again but also can result in civil and
criminal penalties against a iuror personally. So, again, it is very important that you be as honest
and complete with your answers as you possibly can. II you don`t understand the question,
please raise your hand and ask Ior an explanation or clariIication.
In sum, this is a process to assist the parties and their attorneys to select a Iair and
impartial iury. All oI the questions they ask you are Ior this purpose. II, Ior any reason, you do
not think you can be a Iair and impartial iuror, you must tell us.
202.1 INTRODUCTION

Administer oath:

You have now taken an oath to serve as iurors in this trial. BeIore we begin, I am going
to tell you about the rules oI law that apply to this case and let you know what you can expect as
the trial proceeds.

It is my intention to give you most oI the rules oI law but it might be that I will not know
Ior sure all oI the law that will apply in this case until all oI the evidence is presented. However, I
can anticipate most oI the law and give it to you at the beginning oI the trial so that you will
better understand what to be looking Ior while the evidence is presented. II I later decide that
diIIerent or additional law applies to the case, I will tell you. In any event, at the end oI the
evidence I will give you the Iinal instructions on which you must base your verdict. At that time,
you will have a complete written set oI the instructions so you do not have to memorize what I
am about to tell you.

(Continue with the Substantive law, Damages, and General instructions Irom the applicable
sections oI this book, Iollowed by the applicable parts oI 202.2 through 202.5)

202.2 EXPLANATION OF THE TRIAL PROCEDURE

Now that you have heard the law, I want to let you know what you can expect as the trial
proceeds.
Opening Statements: In a Iew moments, Mr. Carroll and the attorneys will each have a
chance to make what are called opening statements. In an opening statement, an attorney is
allowed to give you his views about what the evidence will be in the trial and what you are likely
to see and hear in the testimony.
Evidentiary Phase: AIter the attorneys` opening statements the plaintiIIs will
bring their witnesses and evidence to you.
Evidence: Evidence is the inIormation that the law allows you to see or hear in deciding
this case. Evidence includes the testimony oI the witnesses, documents, and anything else that I
instruct you to consider.
Witnesses: A witness is a person who takes an oath to tell the truth and then answers
attorneys` questions Ior the iury. The answering oI attorneys` questions by witnesses is called
'giving testimony. Testimony means statements that are made when someone has sworn an oath
to tell the truth.
Mr. Carroll will normally ask a witness the questions Iirst. That is called direct
examination. Then the deIense lawyer may ask the same witness additional questions about
whatever the witness has testiIied to. That is called cross-examination. Certain documents or
other evidence may also be shown to you during direct or cross-examination. AIter the plaintiII`s
witnesses have testiIied, the deIendant will have the opportunity to put witnesses on the stand
and go through the same process. Then Mr. Carroll gets to do cross-examination. The process is
designed to be Iair to both sides.
It is important that you remember that testimony comes Irom witnesses. The attorneys do
not give testimony and they are not themselves witnesses.
Obiections: Sometimes the attorneys will disagree about the rules Ior trial procedure
when a question is asked oI a witness. When that happens, one oI the lawyers may make what is
called an 'obiection. The rules Ior a trial can be complicated, and there are many reasons Ior
attorneys to obiect. You should simply wait Ior me to decide how to proceed. II I say that an
obiection is 'sustained, that means the witness may not answer the question. II I say that the
obiection is 'overruled, that means the witness may answer the question.
When there is an obiection and I make a decision, you must not assume Irom that
decision that I have any particular opinion other than that the rules Ior conducting a trial are
being correctly Iollowed. II I say a question may not be asked or answered, you must not try to
guess what the answer would have been. That is against the rules, too.
Side Bar ConIerences: Sometimes I will need to speak to the attorneys about legal
elements oI the case that are not appropriate Ior the iury to hear. The attorneys and I will try to
have as Iew oI these conIerences as possible while you are giving us your valuable time in the
courtroom. But, iI we do have to have such a conIerence during testimony, we will try to hold
the conIerence at the side oI my desk so that we do not have to take a break and ask you to leave
the courtroom.
Recesses: Breaks in an ongoing trial are usually called 'recesses. During a recess you
still have your duties as a iuror and must Iollow the rules, even while having coIIee, at lunch, or
at home.
Instructions BeIore Closing Arguments: AIter all the evidence has been presented to you,
I will instruct you in the law that you must Iollow. It is important that you remember these
instructions to assist you in evaluating the Iinal attorney presentations, which come next, and,
later, during your deliberations, to help you correctly sort through the evidence to reach your
decision.
Closing Arguments: Mr. Carroll and the attorneys will then have the opportunity to make
their Iinal presentations to you, which are called closing arguments.
Final Instructions: AIter you have heard the closing arguments, I will instruct you Iurther
in the law as well as explain to you the procedures you must Iollow to decide the case.
Deliberations: AIter you hear the Iinal iury instructions, you will go to the iury room and
discuss and decide the questions I have put on your verdict Iorm. You will have a copy oI the
iury instructions to use during your discussions. The discussions you have and the decisions you
make are usually called 'iury deliberations. Your deliberations are absolutely private and
neither I nor anyone else will be with you in the iury room.
Verdict: When you have Iinished answering the questions, you will give the verdict Iorm
to the bailiII, and we will all return to the courtroom where your verdict will be read. When that
is completed, you will be released Irom your assignment as a iuror.
What are the rules?
Finally, beIore we begin the trial, I want to give you iust a brieI explanation oI rules you
must Iollow as the case proceeds.
Keeping an Open Mind: You must pay close attention to the testimony and other
evidence as it comes into the trial. However, you must avoid Iorming any Iinal opinion or telling
anyone else your views on the case until you begin your deliberations. This rule requires you to
keep an open mind until you have heard all oI the evidence and is designed to prevent you Irom
inIluencing how your Iellow iurors think until they have heard all oI the evidence and had an
opportunity to Iorm their own opinions. The time and place Ior coming to your Iinal opinions
and speaking about them with your Iellow iurors is during deliberations in the iury room, aIter all
oI the evidence has been presented, closing arguments have been made, and I have instructed
you on the law. It is important that you hear all oI the Iacts and that you hear the law and how to
apply it beIore you start deciding anything.
Consider Only the Evidence: It is the things you hear and see in this courtroom that
matter in this trial. The law tells us that a iuror can consider only the testimony and other
evidence that all the other iurors have also heard and seen in the presence oI the iudge and the
lawyers. Doing anything else is wrong and is against the law. That means that you must not do
any work or investigation oI your own about the case. You must not obtain on your own any
inIormation about the case or about anyone involved in the case, Irom any source whatsoever.
This includes reading newspapers, watching television or using a computer, cell phone, the
Internet, any electronic device, or any other means at all, to get inIormation related to this case or
the people and places involved in this case. This applies whether you are in the courthouse, at
home, or anywhere else. You must not visit places mentioned in the trial or use the internet to
look at maps or pictures to see any place discussed during trial.
Do not provide any inIormation about this case to anyone, including Iriends or Iamily
members. Do not let anyone, including the closest Iamily members, make comments to you or
ask questions about the trial. Jurors must not have discussions oI any sort with Iriends or Iamily
members about the case or the people and places involved. So, do not let even the closest Iamily
members make comments to you or ask questions about the trial. In this age oI electronic
communication, I want to stress again that iust as you must not talk about this case Iace-to-Iace,
you must not talk about this case by using an electronic device. You must not use phones,
computers or other electronic devices to communicate. Do not send or accept any messages
related to this case or your iury service. Do not discuss this case or ask Ior advice by any means
at all, including posting inIormation on an Internet website, chat room or blog.
No Mid-Trial Discussions: When we are in a recess, do not discuss anything about the
trial or the case with each other or with anyone else. II attorneys approach you, don`t speak with
them. The law says they are to avoid contact with you. II Mr. Carroll or an attorney will not look
at you or speak to you, do not be oIIended or Iorm a conclusion about that behavior. The attorney
is not supposed to interact with iurors outside oI the courtroom and is only Iollowing the rules.
The attorney is not being impolite. II an attorney or anyone else does try to speak with you or
says something about the case in your presence, please inIorm the bailiII immediately.
Only the Jury Decides: Only you get to deliberate and answer the verdict questions at the
end oI the trial. I will not intrude into your deliberations at all. I am required to be neutral. You
should not assume that I preIer one decision over another. You should not try to guess what my
opinion is about any part oI the case. It would be wrong Ior you to conclude that anything I say
or do means that I am Ior one side or another in the trial. Discussing and deciding the Iacts is
your iob alone.
202.3 NOTE-TAKING BY 1URORS

II you would like to take notes during the trial, you may do so. On the other hand, oI
course, you are not required to take notes iI you do not want to. That will be leIt up to you
individually.

You will be provided with a note pad and a pen Ior use iI you wish to take notes. Any
notes that you take will be Ior your personal use. However, you should not take them with you
Irom the courtroom. During recesses, the bailiII will take possession oI your notes and will
return them to you when we reconvene. AIter you have completed your deliberations, the bailiII
will deliver your notes to me. They will be destroyed. No one will ever read your notes.

II you take notes, do not get so involved in note-taking that you become distracted Irom
the proceedings. Your notes should be used only as aids to your memory.

Whether or not you take notes, you should rely on your memory oI the evidence and you
should not be unduly inIluenced by the notes oI other iurors. Notes are not entitled to any greater
weight than each iuror`s memory oI the evidence.

202.4 1UROR QUESTIONS

During the trial, you may have a question you think should be asked oI a witness. II so,
there is a procedure by which you may request that I ask the witness a question. AIter all the
attorneys have completed their questioning oI the witness, you should raise your hand iI you
have a question. I will then give you suIIicient time to write the question on a piece oI paper,
Iold it, and give it to the bailiII, who will pass it to me. You must not show your question to
anyone or discuss it with anyone.

I will then review the question with the attorneys. Under our law, only certain evidence
may be considered by a iury in determining a verdict. You are bound by the same rules oI
evidence that control the attorneys` questions. II I decide that the question may not be asked
under our rules oI evidence, I will tell you. Otherwise, I will direct the question to the witness.
The attorneys may then ask Iollow-up questions iI they wish. II there are additional questions
Irom iurors, we will Iollow the same procedure again.

By providing this procedure, I do not mean to suggest that you must or should submit
written questions Ior witnesses. In most cases, the lawyers will have asked the necessary
questions.
301.1 DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, INTERROGATORIES,
STIPULATED TESTIMONY, STIPULATIONS,
AND ADMISSIONS
(From 1.13(a))

a. Deposition or prior testimony:

Members oI the iury, the sworn testimony oI ,
given beIore trial, will now be presented. You are to consider and weigh this testimony as you
would any other evidence in the case.

b. Interrogatories:

Members oI the iury, answers to interrogatories will now be read to you. Interrogatories
are written questions that have been presented beIore trial by one party to another. They are
answered under oath. You are to consider and weigh these questions and answers as you would
any other evidence in the case.

c. Stipulated testimony:

Members oI the iury, the parties have agreed that iI
were called as a witness, |he| |she| would testiIy:

You are to consider and weigh this testimony as you would any other
evidence in the case.

301.2 INSTRUCTION WHEN FIRST ITEM OF DOCUMENTARY,
PHOTOGRAPHIC, OR PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED

The (describe item oI evidence) has now been received in evidence. Witnesses may
testiIy about or reIer to this or any other item oI evidence during the remainder oI the trial. This
and all other items received in evidence will be available to you Ior examination during your
deliberations at the end oI the trial.



301.3 INSTRUCTION WHEN EVIDENCE IS FIRST PUBLISHED TO 1URORS

The (describe item oI evidence) has been received in evidence. It is being shown to you now to
help you understand the testimony oI this witness and other witnesses in the case, as well as the
evidence as a whole. You may examine (describe item oI evidence) brieIly now. It will also be
available to you Ior examination during your deliberations at the end oI the trial.

301.4 INSTRUCTION REGARDING VISUAL OR DEMONSTRATIVE AIDS

a. Generallv.

This witness will be using (identiIy demonstrative or visual aid(s)) to assist in explaining or
illustrating |his| |her| testimony. The testimony oI the witness is evidence: however, |this|
|these| (identiIy demonstrative or visual aid(s)) |is| |are| not to be considered as evidence in the
case unless received in evidence, and should not be used as a substitute Ior evidence. Only items
received in evidence will be available to you Ior consideration during your deliberations.

b. Speciallv createa visual or aemonstrative aias basea on aisputea assumptions.

This witness will be using (identiIy demonstrative aid(s)) to assist in explaining or illustrating
|his| |her| testimony. |This| |These| item|s| |has| |have| been prepared to assist this witness in
explaining |his| |her| testimony. |It| |They| may be based on assumptions which you are Iree to
accept or reiect. The testimony oI the witness is evidence: however, |this| |these| (identiIy
demonstrative or visual aid(s)) |is| |are| not to be considered as evidence in the case unless
received in evidence, and should not be used as a substitute Ior evidence. Only items received in
evidence will be available to you Ior consideration during your deliberations.

301.5 EVIDENCE ADMITTED FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE

The (describe item oI evidence) has now been received into evidence. It has been admitted only
|Ior the purpose oI (describe purpose)| |as to (name party)|. You may consider it only |Ior that
purpose| |as it might aIIect (name party)|. You may not consider that evidence |Ior any other
purpose| |as to |any other party| |(name other party(s)|.



401.1 INTRODUCTION

Members oI the iury, you have now heard and received all oI the evidence in this case. I
am now going to tell you about the rules oI law that you must use in reaching your verdict. |You
will recall at the beginning oI the case I told you that iI, at the end oI the case I decided that
diIIerent law applies, I would tell you so. These instructions are (slightly) diIIerent Irom what I
gave you at the beginning and it is these rules oI law that you must now Iollow.| When I Iinish
telling you about the rules oI law, the attorneys will present their Iinal arguments and you will
then retire to decide your verdict.

401.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

The claims in this case are as Iollows. John Carroll claims that WaterSound, David
Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson and Mary Joule were negligent in ordering a survey oI Carroll`s
construction at Lot 24 without notice and then declaring John Carroll`s construction in violation
oI the County Height Ordinance and must be torn down which caused him property damage and
other harm secondary to the work stoppage. John Carroll also claims that Ronald Voelker was
negligent in his preparation oI both the Iirst and second surveys he perIormed oI the property at
Lot 24.

John Carroll claims that David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson, Mary Joule, Ronald Voelker,
WaterSound and Watercolor made, published and broadcast a Ialse statement about him which
caused him harm. John Carroll claims the statement was that his construction was in violation oI
the Walton County Height Ordinance and must be torn down, that his construction oI the
concrete tower was poor and that he was duly removed Irom the approved builder`s lists at
WaterSound and Watercolor. These statements and portrayals oI his building were deIamatory
to John Carroll and impute to Carroll`s neighbors, peers, potential customers, Realtors and the
community at large that Carroll exhibits characteristics, or a condition incompatible with the
proper exercise oI his or her lawIul business, trade, or proIession.

John Carroll claims David Lilienthal, Mary Joule, Sandra Matteson, Ronald Voelker and
WaterSound committed Iraud against him to cause him harm. Carroll claims the DeIendants
made several Ialse representations oI materials Iacts in order to induce Carroll to act, or reIrain
Irom acting on them. Carroll claims the DeIendants knew or should have known their statements
were Ialse. Carroll was harmed by the DeIendants Iraud.

John Carroll claims David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson and Mary Joule Breached their
Fiduciary Duties to him. Carroll claims the DeIendants had a duty to protect Carroll and his
WaterSound neighbors Irom harm as a result oI their positions in WaterSound. Carroll claims
the DeIendants undertook that duty oI trust and purposeIully breached it in order to do harm to
Carroll. Carroll was damaged as a result oI that Breach oI trust.

John Carroll claims WaterSound had a duty to protect him Irom its agents and
employees. WaterSound became aware oI problems with Sandra Matteson and Mary Joule
which indicated they were unIit Ior their positions. WaterSound breached its duty to protect
Carroll by Iailing to investigate, reassign or discharge Joule and Matteson. WaterSound`s breach
oI duty caused property damage and iniury to Carroll.

John Carroll claims he had a contract with WaterSound which was the Covenants and
Restrictions. Carroll claims WaterSound breached that contract when it ordered a covert survey
oI Carroll`s construction, expressed liens against his property Ior an improper BeneIited
Assessment and removed his name Irom the approved builder`s list without Iollowing the Notice
Provisions or rights to a hearing in the contract. John Carroll suIIered damages as a result oI
WaterSound`s Breach oI Contract.

John Carroll claims WaterSound, Watercolor and Ronald Voelker Iormed and executed a
Civil Conspiracy against him in the Iurtherance oI the above claims. The DeIendants succeeded
by committing overt acts against Carroll in violation oI the express terms oI the Covenants Ior
both communities. Carroll was damaged as a result oI their coven.

WaterSound, Watercolor, David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson, Mary Joule and Ronald
Voelker deny Carroll`s claims.

John Carroll must prove his claims by the greater weight oI the evidence. I will now
deIine some oI the terms you will use in deciding this case.

401.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

'Greater weight oI the evidence means the more persuasive and convincing Iorce and
eIIect oI the entire evidence in the case.

401.4 NEGLIGENCE

Negligence is the Iailure to use reasonable care, which is the care that a reasonably
careIul person would use under like circumstances. Negligence is doing something that a
reasonably careIul person would not do under like circumstances or Iailing to do something that
a reasonably careIul person would do under like circumstances.


401.12 LEGAL CAUSE

a. Legal cause generallv.

Negligence is a legal cause oI loss or damage iI it directly and in natural and continuous
sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such loss or damage, so that it can
reasonably be said that, but Ior the negligence, the loss or damage would not have occurred.

b. Concurring cause.

In order to be regarded as a legal cause oI loss or damage negligence need not be the only
cause. Negligence may be a legal cause oI loss or damage even though it operates in combination
with some natural cause or some other cause iI the negligence contributes substantially to
producing such loss or damage.

c. Intervening cause:

Negligence may also be a legal cause oI loss or damage even though it operates in combination
with some natural cause or some other cause occurring aIter the negligence occurs iI such other
cause was itselI reasonably Ioreseeable and the negligence contributes substantially to producing
such loss or damage or the resulting loss or damage was a reasonably Ioreseeable consequence oI
the negligence and the negligence contributes substantially to producing it.

401.13 PREEMPTIVE CHARGES

The court has determined and now instructs you that

a. Dutv to use reasonable care.

The circumstances at the time and place oI the incident involved in this case were such that
Sandra Matteson, David Lilienthal, Mary Joule, Ronald Voelker and WaterSound had a
duty to use reasonable care Ior John Carroll`s saIety.

b. Jicarious liabilitv.

WaterSound and David Lilienthal are responsible Ior any negligence oI Sandra Matteson,
Mary Joule and Ronald Voelker in ordering a covert survey oI John Carroll`s property,
publishing the results oI the inaccurate survey to the World Wide Web and removing John
Carroll`s name Irom the list oI approved builder`s and posting that note Ior publication to
Realtors and owners and distributing that notice on the World Wide Web.

c. Negligence:

Sandra Matteson, David Lilienthal, Mary Joule, Ronald Voelker and WaterSound were
negligent. The issue Ior you to decide on John Carroll`s claim is whether such negligence
was a legal cause oI loss or damage to claimant.

401.14 PRELIMINARY ISSUES - VICARIOUS LIABILITY

On John Carroll`s claim there is a preliminary issue Ior you to decide. That issue is:

b. Agencv.

(1). Agencv. master ana servant (inaepenaent contractor aistinguishea).

whether David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson, Ronald Voelker and Mary Joule were an agent
oI WaterSound and Watercolor and were acting within the scope oI their employment at
the time and place oI the incident in this case. An agent is a person who is employed to act
Ior another, and whose actions are controlled by their employer or are subiect to their
employer`s right oI control. An employer is responsible Ior the negligence oI their agent iI
such negligence occurs while the agent is perIorming services which they were employed
to perIorm or while the agent is acting at least in part because oI a desire to serve their
employer and is doing something that is reasonably incidental to their employment or
something the doing oI which was reasonably Ioreseeable and reasonably to be expected oI
persons similarly employed.

But a person is not responsible Ior the negligence oI an independent contractor or oI the
agents or employees oI an independent contractor. An independent contractor is a person
who is engaged by another to perIorm speciIic work according to his or her own methods
and whose methods oI perIorming the work are not controlled by the person engaging him
or her and are not subiect to that person`s right oI control.

(2). Apparent agencv.

whether Ronald Voelker, Sandra Matteson, David Lilienthal and Mary Joule were an
apparent agent oI Watercolor and WaterSound and was acting within the scope oI their
apparent authority at the time and place oI the incident in this case. An agent is a person
who is employed to act Ior another, and whose actions are controlled by their employer or
is subiect to their employer`s right oI control. David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson, Ronald
Voelker and Mary Joule was an apparent agent iI WaterSound and Watercolor by their
words or conduct caused or allowed John Carroll to believe that David Lilienthal, Sandra
Matteson, Ronald Voelker and Mary Joule were an agent oI and had authority to act Ior
WaterSound and Watercolor and iI John Carroll iustiIiably relied upon that belieI in
dealing with David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson, Ronald Voelker and Mary Joule as the
agent oI WaterSound and Watercolor. A party is responsible Ior the negligence oI their
apparent agent occurring while the apparent agent is acting within the scope oI their
apparent authority.

401.17 BURDEN OF PROOF ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES

II the greater weight oI the evidence does not support John Carroll`s claim on these issues,
that David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson, Ronald Voelker and Mary Joule negligently ordered
Ronald Voelker to survey Carroll`s property without advance notice in violation oI the
Covenants and to present a case to WaterSound and Watercolor`s Board oI Directors to remove
Carroll`s name Irom the list oI approved builders, then your verdict on the claim oI John Carroll
because oI the claimed negligence oI WaterSound, Watercolor, Ronald Voelker, David
Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson and Mary Joule should be Ior the deIendants.

However, iI the greater weight oI the evidence supports the claim oI John Carroll on these
issues, that David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson, Ronald Voelker and Mary Joule negligently
ordered Ronald Voelker to survey Carroll`s property without advance notice in violation oI the
Covenants and to present a case to WaterSound and Watercolor`s Board oI Directors to remove
Carroll`s name Irom the list oI approved builders, then you shall decide the other issues on John
Carroll`s claims.

401.18 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF`S CLAIM - GENERAL NEGLIGENCE

The issues you must decide on John Carroll`s claim against (deIendant) are:

a. Negligence. generallv.

whether David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson, Ronald Voelker, Mary Joule, WaterSound and
Watercolor) was negligent in ordering Ronald Voelker to survey Carroll`s property without
advance notice in violation oI the Covenants and to present a case to WaterSound and
Watercolor`s Board oI Directors to remove Carroll`s name Irom the list oI approved
builders, and, iI so, whether that negligence was a legal cause oI the loss or damage to
John Carroll.

401.21 BURDEN OF PROOF ON MAIN CLAIM

II the greater weight oI the evidence does not support one or more oI John Carroll`s
claims, your verdict should be Ior David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson, Ronald Voelker, Mary
Joule, WaterSound and on those claims.

However, iI the greater weight oI the evidence supports one or more oI John Carroll`s
claims, then your verdict should be Ior John Carroll and against David Lilienthal, Sandra
Matteson, Ronald Voelker, Mary Joule, WaterSound and on those claims.

However, iI the greater weight oI the evidence supports John Carroll claims against one
or more oI the deIendants, then you should decide and write on the verdict Iorm the percentage
oI the total negligence oI all deIendants that was caused by each oI them.

II the greater weight oI the evidence does not support WaterSound, Watercolor, Sandra
Matteson, David Lilienthal, Ronald Voelker and Mary Joule`s deIenses and the greater weight oI
the evidence does support the DeIendants` claim, then your verdict should be Ior John Carroll in
the total amount oI his damages *you should decide and write on the verdict Iorm what
percentage oI the total negligence oI all deIendants was caused by each deIendant.

405.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

'Greater weight oI the evidence means the more persuasive and convincing Iorce and
eIIect oI the entire evidence in the case.
405.4 CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

'Clear and convincing evidence diIIers Irom the 'greater weight oI the evidence in that it
is more compelling and persuasive. 'Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is precise,
explicit, lacking in conIusion, and oI such weight that it produces a Iirm belieI or conviction,
without hesitation, about the matter in issue.
405.5 NEGLIGENCE

Negligence is the Iailure to use reasonable care, which is the care that a reasonably
careIul person would use under like circumstances. Negligence is doing something that a
reasonably careIul person would not do under like circumstances or Iailing to do something
that a reasonably careIul person would do under like circumstances.
405.6 LEGAL CAUSE

a. Legal cause generallv.

A statement or publication is a legal cause oI loss or damage iI it directly and in natural
and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such loss or damage,
so that it can reasonably be said that, but Ior the statement or publication, the loss or damage
would not have occurred.

b. Concurring cause.

In order to be regarded as a legal cause oI loss or damage a statement or publication need
not be the only cause. A statement or publication may be a legal cause oI loss or damage even
though it operates in combination with the act oI another, some natural cause or some other
cause iI the statement or publication contributes substantially to producing such loss or damage.

c. Intervening cause.

A statement or publication may also be a legal cause oI loss or damage even though it
operates in combination with the act oI another, some natural cause or some other cause
occurring aIter the statement or publication occurs iI such other cause was itselI reasonably
Ioreseeable and the statement or publication contributes substantially to producing such loss or
damage or the resulting loss or damage was a reasonably Ioreseeable consequence oI the
statement or publication and the statement or publication contributes substantially to producing
it.


405.9 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF`S CLAIM - PRIVATE CLAIMANT,
NON-MEDIA DEFENDANT

The issues Ior you to decide on the claim oI John Carroll against WaterSound, Watercolor,
Sandra Matteson, Mary Joule, Ronald Voelker and David Lilienthal are:

a. Issue whether a aefamatorv publication concerning claimant was maae as claimea.

Whether WaterSound, Watercolor, Sandra Matteson, Ronald Voelker, Mary Joule and
David Lilienthal made the statements concerning John Carroll orally, in print and/or via
the World Wide Web: and, iI so, whether the statement tended to iniure John Carroll in his
business or occupation.

Mr. Carroll claims those deIamatory statements were:

John Carroll and his company Chambers Street Builders were properly and iustiIiably
removed Irom the approved builder`s lists at WaterSound and Watercolor.

John Carroll`s construction at Lot 24 WaterSound Beach was built in violation oI Walton
County`s height ordinance and needed to be torn down.

II the greater weight oI the evidence does not support John Carroll`s claim on these issues,
then your verdict should be Ior WaterSound, Watercolor, Sandra Matteson, Mary Joule, Ronald
Voelker and David Lilienthal. However, iI the greater weight oI the evidence supports John
Carroll`s claim on these issues, then your verdict should be Ior John Carroll in the total amount
oI his damages, however you shall consider the deIense oI privilege raised by Watercolor.

c. Defense issue whether aefenaant haa qualifiea privilege.

On the deIense oI privilege, I instruct you that provided one does not speak with improper
motives, which I shall explain in a moment, a person such as Watercolor is privileged to make a
statement to someone such as a member oI the Watercolor HOA, even iI the statement is untrue,
under the Iollowing circumstances:

In a business relationship, a DeIendant who has a duty or interest in the subiect matter oI a
statement makes that statement to another person who has a corresponding duty or interest.

II the greater weight oI the evidence does not show that these circumstances existed, then
you must Iind that Watercolor had no privilege to make such a statement even with proper
motives. However, iI the greater weight oI the evidence does show that Watercolor spoke under
circumstances creating such a privilege, then you should decide whether, as John Carroll claims,
Watercolor made the statement with improper motives abusing that privilege.

a. Issue whether aefenaant abusea qualifiea privilege.

Did Watercolor have a privilege to make a statement even iI untrue, provided they did so
with proper motives. The issue Ior you to decide is thereIore whether, as John Carroll claims,
Watercolor made the statement with improper motives abusing that privilege. One makes a Ialse
statement about another with improper motives iI one`s primary motive and purpose in making
the statement is to gratiIy one`s ill will, hostility and intent to harm the other, rather than to
advance or protect Watercolor`s interest, right or duty to speak to its agents or members on that
subiect or to advance or protect the interests oI the person to whom the statement was made.

II the greater weight oI the evidence does not support John Carroll`s claim that Watercolor
abused any privilege it had, and the greater weight oI the evidence does support the deIense oI
privilege, then your verdict should be Ior Watercolor.

However, iI the greater weight oI the evidence supports John Carroll`s claim that
Watercolor abused any privilege it had, then your verdict should be Ior John Carroll in the total
amount oI his damages.
405.10 DEFAMATION DAMAGES

II you Iind Ior Watercolor, WaterSound, David Lilienthal, Ronald Voelker, Sandra
Matteson and Mary Joule, you will not consider the matter oI damages. But, iI you Iind Ior John
Carroll, you should award John Carroll an amount oI money that will Iairly and adequately
compensate John Carroll Ior such loss or damage as the greater weight oI the evidence shows
was caused by the statement and/or publication in question. You shall consider the Iollowing
elements oI damage:

a. Iniurv to reputation or health, shame. humiliation. mental anguish. hurt feelings.

Any iniury to reputation or health and any shame, humiliation, mental anguish, and hurt
Ieelings experienced in the past or to be experienced in the Iuture. There is no exact standard Ior
Iixing the compensation to be awarded on account oI such elements oI damage. Any award
should be Iair and iust in the light oI the evidence.

b. Lost earnings. lost working time. lost earning capacitv.

(1). When lost earnings or lost working time shown.

Any earnings or working time lost in the past and any loss oI ability to earn money in the
Iuture.
(2). When earnings or lost working time not shown.

Any loss oI ability to earn money sustained in the past and any such loss in the Iuture.

e. Reauction to present value.

Any amounts which you allow in damages Ior loss oI ability to earn money in the Iuture
should be reduced to their present money value and only the present money value oI such
amounts should be included in your verdict.

f. Nominal aamages.

II you Iind Ior John Carroll but Iind that no loss or damage has been proved, you may
award nominal damages. Nominal damages are damages oI an inconsequential amount which are
awarded to vindicate a right where a wrong is established but no damage is proved.

501.1 PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGES: INTRODUCTION

a. When airectea veraict is given on liabilitv.

You should award John Carroll an amount oI money that the greater weight oI the
evidence shows will Iairly and adequately compensate him Ior his loss or damage, including any
damage John Carroll is reasonably certain to incur or experience in the Iuture. You shall consider
the Iollowing elements:

b. When there is no issue of comparative negligence.

II your verdict is Ior Watercolor, WaterSound, David Lilienthal, Ronald Voelker, Sandra
Matteson and Mary Joule you will not consider the matter oI damages. But, iI your verdict is Ior
John Carroll you should award John Carroll an amount oI money that the greater weight oI the
evidence shows will Iairly and adequately compensate him Ior his loss iniury or damage,
including any damage John Carroll is reasonably certain to incur or experience in the Iuture. You
shall consider the Iollowing elements:

501.2 PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGES: ELEMENTS


c. Lost earnings. lost time. lost earning capacitv.

When lost earnings or lost working time shown.

Any earnings or working time lost in the past and any loss oI ability to earn money in
the Iuture.

h. Propertv aamage.

Any damage to his property and home at Lot 24, WaterSound Beach, Phase IV. The
measure oI such damage is:

the diIIerence between the value oI home at Lot 24 immediately beIore and its value
immediately aIterward.

the reasonable cost oI repair, iI it was practicable to repair the home at Lot 24, with due
allowance Ior any diIIerence between its value immediately beIore the letter oI violation
and 7 month work stoppage without a rooI and its value aIter repair.

You shall also take into consideration any loss to John Carroll by being deprived oI the
use oI his home at Lot 24 during the period reasonably required Ior its repair.

501.3 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, NON-PARTY FAULT AND
MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS

In determining the total amount oI damages, you should not make any reduction because oI
the negligence, iI any, oI John Carroll. The court will enter a iudgment based on your verdict
and, iI you Iind that John Carroll was negligent in any degree, the court in entering iudgment will
reduce the total amount oI damages by the percentage oI negligence which you Iind was caused
by John Carroll.

The court will also take into account, in entering iudgment against any deIendant whom
you Iind to have been negligent, the percentage oI that deIendant`s negligence compared to the
total negligence oI all the parties to this action.

501.7 REDUCTION OF DAMAGES TO PRESENT VALUE

Any amount oI damages which you allow Ior loss oI ability to earn money in the Iuture
should be reduced to its present money value and only the present money value oI these Iuture
economic damages should be included in your verdict.

The present money value oI Iuture economic damages is the sum oI money needed now
which, together with what that sum will earn in the Iuture, will compensate John Carroll Ior these
losses as they are actually experienced in Iuture years.

501.9 JOINT LIABILITY OF JOINT TORTFEASORS

a. Comparative negligence cases (special veraicts).

Even iI you decide that more than one oI the deIendants were negligent, you should
determine John Carroll`s damages in a single total amount, and write that amount, in dollars, on
the verdict Iorm.

b. Cases not requiring special veraicts.

II you Iind Ior John Carroll against more than one oI the deIendants, you should assess
John Carroll`s damages in a single amount against the deIendants whom you Iind to be liable to
John Carroll.

601.1 WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE

In deciding this case, it is your duty as iurors to decide the issues, and only those issues,
that I submit Ior your determination. Your agreed-upon answers to my questions are called your
iury verdict.

The evidence in this case consists oI the sworn testimony oI the witnesses, all exhibits
received in evidence and all Iacts that were admitted or agreed to by the parties.

In reaching your verdict, you must think about and weigh the testimony and any
documents, photographs, or other material that has been received in evidence. You may also
consider any Iacts that were admitted or agreed to by the lawyers. Your iob is to determine what
the Iacts are. You may use reason and common sense to reach conclusions. You may draw
reasonable inIerences Irom the evidence. But you should not guess about things that were not
covered here. And, you must always apply the law as I have explained it to you.

601.2 BELIEVABILITY OF WITNESSES

a. General consiaerations.

Let me speak brieIly about witnesses. In evaluating the believability oI any witness and
the weight you will give the testimony oI any witness, you may properly consider the demeanor
oI the witness while testiIying: the Irankness or lack oI Irankness oI the witness: the intelligence
oI the witness: any interest the witness may have in the outcome oI the case: the means and
opportunity the witness had to know the Iacts about which the witness testiIied: the ability oI the
witness to remember the matters about which the witness testiIied: and the reasonableness oI the
testimony oI the witness, considered in the light oI all the evidence in the case and in the light oI
your own experience and common sense.

601.4 MULTIPLE CLAIMS AGAINST NUMEROUS PARTIES

In your deliberations, you will consider and decide 8 distinct claims. The claims to be
considered are:

Did DeIendants David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson, Mary Joule, Ronald Voelker and/or
WaterSound commit Fraud against John Carroll?

Did DeIendants David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson and/or Mary Joule Breach their
Fiduciary Duty to John Carroll?

Did DeIendants David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson, Mary Joule, Ronald Voelker,
WaterSound and/or Watercolor commit a Libel against John Carroll?

Did DeIendant WaterSound negligently retain Sandra Matteson and/or Mary Joule in
their employment?

Did DeIendant WaterSound, Watercolor and/or Ronald Voelker Iorm a Civil Conspiracy
against John Carroll?

Did DeIendant David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson, Mary Joule, Ronald Voelker,
Watercolor and/or WaterSound commit a slander against John Carroll?

Did DeIendant WaterSound, David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson, Mary Joule or Ronald
Voelker commit negligence against John Carroll?

Did DeIendant WaterSound breach its contract with John Carroll?

Although these claims have been tried together, each is separate Irom the others, and each
party is entitled to have you separately consider each claim as it aIIects that party. ThereIore, in
your deliberations, you should consider the evidence as it relates to each claim separately, as you
would had each claim been tried beIore you separately.

601.5 CONCLUDING INSTRUCTION (BEFORE FINAL ARGUMENT)

That is the law you must Iollow in deciding this case. The attorneys Ior the parties will
now present their Iinal arguments. When they are through, I will have a Iew Iinal instructions
about your deliberations.

6(&7,21&/26,1*,16758&7,216

Members oI the iury, you have now heard all the evidence, my instructions on the law
that you must apply in reaching your verdict and the closing arguments oI the attorneys. You
will shortly retire to the iury room to decide this case.

During deliberations, iurors must communicate about the case only with one another and
only when all iurors are present in the iury room. You will have in the iury room all oI the
evidence that was received during the trial. In reaching your decision, do not do any research on
your own or as a group. Do not use dictionaries, the Internet, or any other reIerence materials.
Do not investigate the case or conduct any experiments. Do not visit or view the scene oI any
event involved in this case or look at maps or pictures on the Internet. II you happen to pass by
the scene, do not stop or investigate. All iurors must see or hear the same evidence at the same
time. Do not read, listen to, or watch any news accounts oI this trial.

You are not to communicate with any person outside the iury about this case. Until you
have reached a verdict, you must not talk about this case in person or through the telephone,
writing, or electronic communication, such as a blog, twitter, e-mail, text message, or any other
means. Do not contact anyone to assist you, such as a Iamily accountant, doctor, or lawyer.
These communications rules apply until I discharge you at the end oI the case. II you become
aware oI any violation oI these instructions or any other instruction I have given in this case, you
must tell me by giving a note to the bailiII.

Any notes you have taken during the trial may be taken to the iury room Ior use during
your discussions. Your notes are simply an aid to your own memory, and neither your notes nor
those oI any other iuror are binding or conclusive. Your notes are not a substitute Ior your own
memory or that oI other iurors. Instead, your verdict must result Irom the collective memory and
iudgment oI all iurors based on the evidence and testimony presented during the trial.

At the conclusion oI the trial, the bailiII will collect all oI your notes and immediately
destroy them. No one will ever read your notes.

In reaching your verdict, do not let bias, sympathy, preiudice, public opinion, or any
other sentiment Ior or against any party to inIluence your decision. Your verdict must be based
on the evidence that has been received and the law on which I have instructed you.

Reaching a verdict is exclusively your iob. I cannot participate in that decision in any
way and you should not guess what I think your verdict should be Irom something I may have
said or done. You should not think that I preIer one verdict over another. ThereIore, in reaching
your verdict, you should not consider anything that I have said or done, except Ior my speciIic
instructions to you.

Pay careIul attention to all the instructions that I gave you, Ior that is the law that you
must Iollow. You will have a copy oI my instructions with you when you go to the iury room to
deliberate. All the instructions are important, and you must consider all oI them together. There
are no other laws that apply to this case, and even iI you do not agree with these laws, you must
use them in reaching your decision in this case.

AIter you have decided what the Iacts are, you may Iind that some instructions do not
apply. In that case, Iollow the instructions that do apply and use them together with the Iacts to
reach your verdict.

When you go to the iury room, the Iirst thing you should do is choose a presiding iuror to
act as a Ioreperson during your deliberations. The Ioreperson should see to it that your
discussions are orderly and that everyone has a Iair chance to be heard.

It is your duty to talk with one another in the iury room and to consider the views oI all
the iurors. Each oI you must decide the case Ior yourselI, but only aIter you have considered the
evidence with the other members oI the iury. Feel Iree to change your mind iI you are convinced
that your position should be diIIerent. You should all try to agree. But do not give up your
honest belieIs iust because the others think diIIerently. Keep an open mind so that you and your
Iellow iurors can easily share ideas about the case.

I will give you a verdict Iorm with questions you must answer. I have already instructed
you on the law that you are to use in answering these questions. You must Iollow my
instructions and the Iorm careIully. You must consider each question separately. Please answer
the questions in the order they appear. AIter you answer a question, the Iorm tells you what to
do next. I will now read the Iorm to you: (read Iorm oI verdict)
You will be given (state number) Iorms oI verdict, which I shall now read to you:

II you Iind Ior John Carroll, your verdict will be in the Iollowing Iorm: (read Iorm oI
verdict)

II you Iind Ior the deIendants, your verdict will be in the Iollowing Iorm: (read Iorm oI
verdict)

Your verdict(s) must be unanimous, that is, your verdict must be agreed to by each oI
you. When you have Iinished Iilling out the Iorms, your Ioreperson must write the date and sign
it at the bottom and return the verdicts to the bailiII.

II any oI you need to communicate with me Ior any reason, write me a note and give it to
the bailiII. In your note, do not disclose any vote or split or the reason Ior the communication.

You may now retire to decide your verdicts.

&,9,/&2163,5$&<

John Carroll claims that he was harmed by a conspiracy between WaterSound,

Watercolor, Ronald Voelker and others to boycott him in his attempts to conduct his
trade, damage his proIession through iniurious Ialsehoods and other deIamation,
purposeIully breach the terms oI his contracts and deIame and embarrass him by Iirst
installing his name on the approved contractor lists Ior WaterSound and Watercolor only
to secretly remove his name Irom the lists without Iollowing the notice provisions.

John Carroll must prove that the parties conspired together. This agreement may
have been expressed in words or writing or implied by the actions oI the participants.

John Carroll must prove that the plan was to commit an unlawIul act or do a
lawIul act by unlawIul means. The conspiracy itselI is not the wrong, rather it is the
combining oI the participants to commit a wrong against Carroll that makes the
conspiracy actionable.

John Carroll must prove that at least one oI the parties to the agreement
committed some outward act against Carroll in Iurtherance oI their agreement.

John Carroll must also prove that he was personally harmed as a result oI the
actions oI the participants.
&,9,/&2163,5$&<'$0$*(6

II you Iind Ior the DeIendants, you should not consider John Carroll`s damages.

II you Iind in Iavor oI John Carroll, you should award an amount oI money that
will Iairly and adequately compensate John Carroll Ior his losses, iniury or damages that
the greater weight oI the evidence shows was a direct or natural result oI the acts
committed during the onspiracy.